So Canada has State Sponsored Religious Beliefs Now..........

According to Trudeau, only the religions with correct beliefs get funding from him

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/summer-jobs-program-1.4491602

For those of you that don't know, abortion has NO legislation in Canada. Its not a constitutional right, its not a human right, its not any of that. Its just allowed because to not allow it would breach another right. Its in a state of legal vacuum and the only significant movements involving it in the last 30 years were ones that would have illegalized it. No more than three of seven sitting Supreme Court judges in Canadian history have called abortion a constitutional right.There isn't even restrictions on it because of said legal vacuum. There is no right to access to safe and legal abortions in Canadian law, and nothing saying that abortions are women right or human rights.

Let me be clear here, I am not against abortion. But I am against lying and infringement of rights. The liberal government is literally imposing their own beliefs on religious organizations because they feel like they can, all the while blatantly lying about the status of abortion in Canada

This is a govermnent that is expressly lying to its own people to impose its beliefs. This is extremely authoritarian and scary behaviour

Very interesting. Ima look more into it and come back.

This is pretty crazy, super anti-religious freedom.

Government should just stay out of the religion business altogether. As a Canadian, I'm not okay with this

@ig-88 said:

Canada has its upsides. But there is certainly dumb shit. Especially with the fact our prime minister makes Trump look Einstein level competent in comparison

Canada is a one big unethical liberal social experiment set-up.

Trudeau sucks.

Aren't you from Quebec or something?

He certainly won't be popular there after this stunt

"If you kill your enemies, they win!"

America doesn't even want to fund states anymore that did not vote for their current president and protects religious groups that claim to be legal clinics conducting abortion but are actually not medical professionals who pretend to be and try to guilt trip women out of abortions. Clean in front of your own door, before crying about the evil liberals from beyond the border and spare me the "I'm not racist/against abortions, but..." rhetoric.

@decaf_wizard: I'm in Ontario. For the record I'm not really against abortion. I just think this is stupid.

@jashro44: Yea, I am in the same boat

@stahlflamme: I'm not American. I am not conservative. I live in Prince Edwards Island. I fully support abortion, but I do not support liars that try to bend Canadian Law to their will to oppress people because of their beliefs. I could not call myself a liberal if I did

@dernman: ?

only providing wage subsidies to religious organization that don't infringe on human rights seems like common sense

I don't really see how this is controversial

@decaf_wizard: I was just saying your post felt like a balloon popper. I was using it in a complementary way.

The issue is that its dictating belief, not action. A church would have to fundamentally go against their beliefs to be subsidized, which is in effect the state funding specific religious beliefs that line up with their own beliefs (which is extremely sketchy), or at the very least picking favourites among belief systems. And like I have already stated, abortion isn't a right in Canada. The Trudeau government is lying

there's nothing legally stopping a woman from getting one, women are legally allowed to do it, it's not a specifically written right that they can have abortions, but its overall implied in thier right to do as they want with their bodies

and they aren't dictating peoples beliefs, they don't tell anyone they can't believe that, but if you force that on people in a way that infriges on human rights then you don't get subsidies, they don't say anything about shutting them down or forcing them to do anything, they just wont get free money

Is it really? Since you looked it up, please shed some light, how are they stopping anyone's religious freedoms? They are playing favorites, for sure, however, i don't see them as being anti-freedom.

welp Canada... you did this to yourself.

WTH, I'm pretty firm in the belief of complete separation of church and state.

It is most certainly not dictating belief. Get your own stinking money. Simple as that. They are picking favs. That much is true, however, i see no issue with not giving money to someone you disagree with.

Let me put it this way

You see two beggars on the street, one is a christian, the other is an atheist, but you only have a single bill and no way to break it down. You choose who you wish to give the money to, but that does not, in any way, infringe on the rights of the other person. You simply made your own choice of who you like more.

Bunch of left wings on here.

This is incorrect. The case that "legalized" abortion actually had nothing to do with a woman's right to get abortions. It had to do with a doctors right to preform them. And its not legally implied at all, in fact two or three times sense that ruling, a law illegalizing abortion has almost passed, one only getting narrowly defeated by a TIE in the senate. Only three out of seven sitting Supreme Court judges have ever even called it a right, and that number is at two out of seven right now. I can guarantee you that if a case claiming access to safe and legal abortions was a human and inalienable right, was brought to the Supreme Court, it wouldn't win

They have made it clear they are saying specifically,if your church teaches that abortion is wrong, you don't get special money from the government that everybody else does. That is the literal definition of the state sponsored belief system

Forcing people to accept abortion as a right.

"Under the new rules, applicants must agree — by marking a box on an electronic form — that they respect charter rights, including "women's rights and women's reproductive rights." The office of the employment minister has said without the confirmation, an organization will not receive funding."

This is a quote from the link in the BIO.

@chimeroid: A big part of the reason I don't like this is that the pretences they are doing it on is backed up by nothing but lies, and that taxpayer money is being used to play favourites. Abortion is a hot button issue in some places and its near 50/50 on acceptance in some whole provinces

If religions was entirely defunded, I wouldn't have an issue

First of all, that is not forcing, what is or is not a human right is decided by the state or international entities.Also,no religious freedoms are hurt there. If your religion tells you that abortion is unacceptable, they are still not forbidding you from practicing it. You just need to get your own damned money.

I agree with religions being defunded. From what i know, human rights are deliberately vague in some areas to make sure the broadest of the terms apply.

As I have said, abortion exists in a legal void. Its not actually a right here. They are lying about It being a right to play favourites to the detriment of people they don't agree with, which it infuriates me they can somehow get away with. This is actually worse than anything Trump has done

If I was Governor General, I would disband the entire cabinet and dismiss the prime minister and order a re-election on the grounds that they were deliberately misleading the Canadian people and breaching the constitution (which make no mistake this does) if something like this happened under me.

@decaf_wizard: Actually, from what i know, abortion is considered a constitutional right in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled so in 1988. From what i can see, you are just fired up and angry, but that does not necessarily makes you right.

There is an important difference here

It was declared unconstitutional to prevent a doctor from administering abortions to a patient who wanted them. That case was specifically about a doctors right to administer abortions, not a patients right to receive them which is an important legal distinction, in fact doctors are allowed to refuse to give abortions to the point where they actually were not at all preformed in my home province until quite recently because nobody would do it and the government couldn't force them to and were not required to provide abortion services. You had to leave the province. The law illegalizing them is still on the books, just unconstitutional and thus rendered null. There has been no legislation or constitutional amendments made to change the status of abortions and thus it exists in a legal void. The Supreme Court of Canada actually refused to rule on a case case, that argued that fetuses have a constitutionally guaranteed right to life compounding the issue even further

Like dude a five second google search could show you this

*sigh* It's moments like these I remember why I've taken my fathers stances on politics and the like.

Lol leafs at it again

Difference being not only are these things NOT law, they are technically illegal under The Constitution and Roe v. Wade. Let me start by saying I'm Pro Life, however I'm pro Legal fairness and definitely a Constitutionalist. One way or another, problems like you've described correct themselves in the States. New judges, new legislators, opinions of constituents will affect the pocket books (if for no other reason, but affecting the bottom line of a politician's donators). Constitutionally illegal laws get brought before the Supreme Court and FAR more often than not, get repealed (it wasn't a law, but you saw how for Trump's immigration ban got thanks to the Supreme Court, for instance).

I don't know very much about how Canada works, hence I don't tend to comment on it. Just suggesting you might want to do the same about your Neighbor to the South.

You apparently didn't read the link. Here is another one explaining that churches who were pro-life were specifically targeted by the Prime Minister .

This is definitely violating religious freedom as:

Under the new rules, applicants must agree — by marking a box on an electronic form — that they respect charter rights, including "women's rights and women's reproductive rights." The office of the employment minister has said without the confirmation, an organization will not receive funding. Link

This is making obligatory support for something they religiously cannot agree with. This is anti-freedom and is seriously messed up.

Wait are people saying abortions are a bad thing?

Forcing people to say it isn't, is a bad thing.

Canada is a secular state. They should be allowed to legislate whatever the hell they want concerning reproductive rights.

Edit: This sounds just like when that dumb woman in the US got jailed for refusing to dispense a marriage license to a gay couple because it was against her religious beliefs.

I'm absolutely appalled by people who think their religious tenants are so important that they should govern the lives of everyone, including those who are outside the religion.

edit2: This isn't Canada having state sponsored religious beliefs man. There's no church of Canada. This is religious nutcases getting triggered over Canada's progressive human rights positions. Don't twist them.

@cable_extreme: ffs... they are not forcing anyone to say anything. They will not disband the church or set it ablaze.

You are twisting the story.

@decaf_wizard: actually, the ruling was that limiting a woman's right to an abortion is unconstitutional. thus raising the abortion to a constitutional right. Doctors can refuse to do it as it their right. Laws, however, cannot.

"In a landmark decision, the Court declared in 1988 the entirety of the country's abortion law to be unconstitutional. The court noted that "[f]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state" were essentially a breach of the woman's right to security of the person, which is guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

With this ruling they included the abortion in this definition.

now, legal vacuum doesnt mean what you think it means.

Abortion as such is a right in Canada. However, laws need to be passed to define said right. Bear in mind that, since the charter is a higher source of law that no law can violate said right. It might limit and shape it. But it cannot take it away .

Well ignoring the case (because I haven't read it in ages and was wrong admittedly) that case only mandates that the law cannot prevent you from getting one, and thus decriminalizes them, which is different from legalization. IT says the law that criminalized them was unconstitutional, it didn't speak of the act itself or declare that act legal, and refuses to even rule on that to this day. There is no right to legal and safe abortions in Canada, their legal status isn't what Trudeau is saying they are, and the government is lying about that and using it to play favourites. Plain and simple

this

I just skimmed through this thread, but if I read right then Canada is giving money to religious groups who support abortion but not to groups that don't?

I don't think the government should be involved with religion in this type of way at all, certainly if they're playing favorites with religious morality.

By definition, any act not declared illegal is legal.

Now, I admit, the precedental law of North America is not my forte, but as a bachelor of Laws, i know a thing or two about these things.

So, to put it bluntly, you do not declare acts legal.

They refused to make a new ruling so they are still using the 'born alive' rule of old.

There is literally a constitutional right to an abortion in Canada. As proven by my previous post.

Trudeau is putting a harsh spin on it to manipulate people, that is true, he is being an ass, that is true as well.

however, from a legal standpoint, he definitely knows what he is doing, and trust me on this, he does not make those calls without a team of lawyers advising him on whether or not he is right.

Yea declare it legal wasn't the correct word to say there. The case didn't comment on the act itself or if the fetus was a person (which they constantly refuse to make a ruling on), it said that any law illegalizing it was unconstitutional

And yes you do have a constitutional right to GET an abortion here, but there is no right to access to safe and legal abortions in Canada, which as somebody involved with the medical field I can assure you. Surely you know the difference between those things. This is why the people could force the government to build a French School in Summerside despite incredibly few students actually attending but couldn't get them to build an abortion clinic for years, even after attempting to sue the Government and failing, with Superior Court saying the Government of PEI didn't have to build/run and staff one and the Supreme Court rejecting the case. Trudeau is lying, plain and simple. Never mind what he is doing here is likely unconstitutional in and of itself, which wouldn't be surprising given he is less competent than Trump when it comes to these things. They are attempting to mandate people's morality

@chimeroid: you aren’t reading it are you, they are forcing you to say it or you don’t get funded...

And you are not reading the facts at all.

YOU ARE NOT FORBIDDEN FROM REFUSING TO SAY IT.

However, if you choose not to say it you will not get the funds from the state.

Your religious freedoms are still a 100% intact.

IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO GET MONEY FROM THE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read your underlined statement, how is that not supporting a state sponsored belief?

People are pissed because they have the idea that the state shouldn't sponsor one religious or anti-religious belief over another.

It is fighting religious freedom by targeting a specific wide-held religious belief. When the government picks sides in this aspect it is hurting religious freedom and creates state sponsored religious beliefs. You get funded or can't get funded based on a specific religious belief, that is anti-religious freedom as it is a freedom currently afforded to all religions EXCEPT those who hold a specific belief....

@cable_extreme:

Getting funded or not is not a part of your religious freedom.

It simply states this "If your views are anti-constitutional, we will not give you money". Simple as that.

The same debate was had in US about freedom of speech.

You have the freedom of speech, just not the freedom of consequence.

The same applies here, logically, the state is not disallowing anyone to believe anything they want. They just do not allow funding for those whose beliefs go against constitutional rights. Which, to be fair, is actually fair.

Also, the state did not choose a religion as a "sponsored" religion. The state has the right to choose who gets funded, how, and for what reasons.

I can see you are a bit of a religious nut who holds no knowledge of law and will not continue with this charade of a debate. Go educate yourself, learn what the actual religious freedom is and then we can talk again. I will not be replying to your posts anymore unless they are actually educated in the matter we are discussing.

Being secular just states that no religion is considered an official religion of the state. SImple as that.